EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.15.08

How Software Patents Impede Standards and GNU/Linux Development

Posted in Asia, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat, Standard, Virtualisation at 8:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ISO in moneyLatest evidence from the news

THERE IS NOTHING MORE compelling than fresh examples which demonstrate the severity of the issues, so here are some reports and opinions that emerged this morning.

Patents Can’t Mix with Standards

In a free society, standards and patents mix as well as water and sand. They just don’t. We stressed this point last week and one new discussion from India re-highlights the threat of software patents to many different aspects of life.

Report on Free Software Free Society, 2008.

[...]

But this revolution is being threatened by monopolists who wish to control the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Venkatesh Hariharan, Eben, Mishi and Marco gave presentations on the current state of that stupid idea called software patents.

Glyn Moody says more on the same subject, with emphasis on so-called standards (which only the wealthy are permitted to support and comply with).

For if anything other than royalty-free terms are adopted, open source is effectively locked out – something that Microsoft knows full well, which is why it has pushed for “Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing” (RAND). At first sight, this appears fair enough – after all, if it is non-discriminatory, what’s not to like?

But the point is that it is not possible for free software programs to support even nominal licensing fees, since the unlimited, unchecked distribution of code makes it impossible to monitor how much should be paid.

We wrote about this subject many times before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and Rambus is a good example of the problems involved [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Andy Updegrove, who is personally involved with that case, has got some new things to say about it.

This has made its stockholders particularly partisan, as its stock has risen and fallen in synchrony with its fortunes in court, and its detractors particularly irate, because they view Rambus not only as a patent troll, but also as one that has gamed the standards development process during the creation of a universally adopted SDRAM memory standard. Hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars of royalties are at stake.

Software Patents Can’t Mix with Freedom

Apple’s software patents definitely harm GNU/Linux [1, 2] and it turns out that a GPL violator known as VMware is doing the same thing. This might not be deliberate, but it’s having the same effect. Despite the fact that VMware is a fairly new member of the Linux Foundation, this offers no peace of mind. VMware is now led by a Microsoft lackey [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], who fought Microsoft’s rivals in all sort of nasty ways.

Here is the seminal analysis of the latest problem, which has just become visible to non-subscribers of LWN.

On the kernel page a few weeks ago, we took a look at KSM, a technique to reduce memory usage by sharing identical pages. Currently proposed for inclusion in the mainline kernel, KSM implements a potentially useful—but not particularly new—mechanism. Unfortunately, before it can be examined on its technical merits, it may run afoul of what is essentially a political problem: software patents.

Heise gives the shorter and simpler version of this story.

A report from LWN.net suggests that there may be a patent problem with KSM, a memory management technology that is a candidate for inclusion in a future version of Linux. KSM attempts to extend the idea of sharing memory pages between processes from just managing shared libraries, to any identical memory pages, such as running multiple copies of the same program, or virtualised guest operating systems.

The threat affects KVM, which is now owned by Red Hat, the largest contributor to Linux. Quoting from the above, “The folks behind the KSM project are some of the kvm hackers from Qumranet—which is now part of Red Hat.”

Well, Red Hat has already expressed its support for the Linux Defender project, which it also helps fund. From Red Hat Magazine:

“The idea is to create a defensive patent shield or no-fly zone around Linux,” says Keith Bergelt, the chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, the consortium launching the site. The core members of that group, formed in 2005, are IBM, NEC, Novell NOVL, Philips, Red Hat RHT and Sony.

We previously wrote about this initiative in [1, 2, 3, 4]. More could be done to topple the broken system rather than abide by and obey its rules.

“Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.”

Richard Stallman

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

16 Comments

  1. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Gravatar

    You refer to Rambus as a patent troll and I would like to see the evidence behind that statement as it contradicts the FTC ALJ, CAFC and NDCA.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 16, 2008 at 3:53 am

    Gravatar

    Andy said that it’s viewed by some as a troll. He did not call it a troll and neither did I.

  3. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 4:00 am

    Gravatar

    I clearly understand Andy to believe Rambus is a patent troll after reading his blog yesterday. What is lacking is any evidence, as a a matter of fact the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary so one wonders about the motivation behind such statements. I am all for a healthy discussion but maybe we should add full disclosure rules for the debaters? I am an investor in Rambus.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 16, 2008 at 4:03 am

    Gravatar

    Andy has fought Rambus for ll that I know. Hts bitterness might be the cause here.

  5. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:21 am

    Gravatar

    I realize that Andy has an axe (or client) to grind but would appreciate more balanced “reporting”. He is of course entitled to his opinion but there’s another side to the story. Where Andy believes that (contrary to every single high court that has heard these cases) that Rambus acted improperly in front of JEDEC there are other (myself included) who believe that Rambus has contributed significantly to technological development in all computing devices. It is not without reason the investors received the highest IEEE awards. This whole saga reads better than a Grisham novel as it is truly a story of greed and David v Goliath. http://rambus.org/story/ gives a factual record.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:31 am

    Gravatar

    There are two sides to every story, but what Rambus did is ambush that even the EU Commission was angry about.

  7. Ketchikan said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:42 am

    Gravatar

    Andy and all other misinformed individuals should internalize Judge Prost’s opinion in the recent Qualcomm v. Broadcom CAFC ruling that cites the previous ruling made by Judge Rader in 2003:

    “After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.” (Judge Prost, CAFC)

    How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?

    The whole Rambus “JEDEC misconduct” narrative has no bearing with reality and was propagated by a convicted pact of patent pirates.

  8. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:42 am

    Gravatar

    Where is the EVIDENCE of that? The EU patent rules are very different from USPTO so let’s compare apples to apples.

    Judge Prost’s opinion in the recent Qualcomm v. Broadcom CAFC ruling:

    “After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.”

    The “ambush” was made by the memory manufacturing cartel, actually in full daylight. The same companies found quilty by the DOJ and ordered to pay close to $1b in fines and having key employees go to jail.

    Please read the FTC ALJ ID: http://rambus.org/legal/ftc/id.txt

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

    Gravatar

    Ketchikan,

    There is no such thing as “patent pirates”.

  10. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 5:49 am

    Gravatar

    FTC Administrative Law Judge McGuire Initial Decision in FTC v Rambus:

    SUMMARY OF THE DECISION Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden
    of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint.
    First, the evidence at trial establishes that Complaint Counsel failed to
    prove the facts they alleged in the Complaint. Second, an analysis of the
    legal theories advanced by Complaint Counsel demonstrates that there is no
    legal basis for finding a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
    Commssion Act, either as based on other antitrust laws or solely as an unfair
    method of competition.
    Third, an application of the facts established at trial to the legal theories
    asserted leads to the conclusion that Complaint Counsel have failed to prove
    their case. The evidentiary record demonstrates that: (1) the EINJEDEC patent
    policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and
    Respondent did not violate this policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint
    Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the
    facts of this case; (3) Respondent s conduct did not amount to deception and
    did not violate any “extrinsic duties ” such as a duty of good faith to
    disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any
    undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a
    JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to broaden
    Respondent’s patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper ,
    either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a legitimate business
    justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary
    conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly
    violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8) there is no causal link between JEDEC
    standardization and Respondent’s acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members
    of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by
    Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable;
    (10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as
    Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to
    Respondent’s superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did not
    result in anti competitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result
    in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked in to using
    Respondent’s technologies in its current standardization efforts. For these
    reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden to establish
    liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly, the Complaint is
    DISMISSED.

    SUMMARY OF LIABILITY For the above stated reasons, Complaint
    Counsel, the party with the burden of proof, have failed to establish the
    elements necessary for finding liability on Counts , II and III of the
    Complaint. A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows
    that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant
    markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged
    in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open
    standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an
    unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged
    conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and
    utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not
    proven the elements necessary to support a finding ofliability.

    SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof 1. Pursuant to
    Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 US. c. ~ 45, the Commssion has jurisdiction over
    the subject matter of this proceeding and over Respondent, Rambus Inc. 2.
    Respondent is organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of
    the laws of the state of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of
    business located at 4440 EI Camino Road Real, Los Altos, California 94022. 3.
    Respondent is a corporation, as “corporation” is defined in Section 4 of the
    Federal Trade Commssion Act, 15 US. c. ~ 44. 329 4. Respondent’ s acts and
    practices, including the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint, are in
    or afect commerce as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade
    Commssion Act, 15 US. C. ~ 44. 5. Pursuant to ~ 3. 43 (a) of the Federal
    Trade Commssion s Rules of Practice, Complaint Counsel bear the burden of
    proof of establishing each element of the violations alleged in the Complaint
    by a preponderance of the evidence. The Relevant Markets and Monopoly Power
    6. The relevant geographic market for purposes of determning the possession
    of monopoly power in this case is the world. 7. The relevant product markets
    at issue in this proceeding involve technologies that are incorporated in
    DRAs for use in current and recent generation personal computers and other
    electronic memory devices. Each market consists of a type of technology that
    addresses a specific aspect of memory design and operation. The four relevant
    product markets are: (1) the latency technology market; (2) the burst length
    technology market; (3) the data acceleration technology market; and (4) the
    clock synchronization technology market. In addition, there is a cluster
    market of synchronous DRA technologies. 8. Complaint Counsel have
    demonstrated that Respondent has acquired monopoly power in the relevant
    markets. However, Complaint Counsel have not demonstrated that Respondent’s
    acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power was unlawfl. No Pattern of
    Anticompetitive Acts and Practices 9. Complaint Counsel have failed to
    demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct amounted to a pattern of
    anticompetitive acts and practices. 330 10. Complaint Counsel’ s legal
    theory, i. , that Respondent’s challenged conduct violated Section 5 of the
    Federal Trade Commssion Act, which proscribes “unfair methods of competition
    ” lacks a reasonable basis in law. 11. Complaint Counsel have failed to
    demonstrate that the duties upon which they base their challenge are clear
    and unambiguous. 12. The evidence presented at trial does not provide a
    factual basis for finding a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices.
    13. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that amendments to broaden
    patent applications are improper, either under patent law or EIA/JEDEC rules.
    No Exclusionary Conduct 14. Respondent has demonstrated that there were
    legitimate business justifications for the conduct challenged by Complaint
    Counsel. Maintaining the confdentiality of the proprietary information
    contained in its patent applications clearly related to a legitimate and
    normal business purpose and thus precludes a finding of exclusionary conduct
    in this case. 15. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that mere
    participation in a standard setting organization, without more, can form the
    basis for excluding a member s legitimate right to protect its trade secrets
    from disclosure. 16. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
    Respondent engaged in exclusionary conduct for reasons extrinsic to the
    antitrust laws. No Intent 17. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate
    that Respondent intended to mislead or 331 deceive JEDEC. 18. Complaint
    Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct rises
    to a level where intent can be inferred. 19. Evidence in the record indicates
    that Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that the intent element has
    been met. No Causation 20. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate a
    causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent s acquisition of
    monopoly power. 21. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that
    Respondent acquired monopoly power by virtue of JEDEC standard setting. 22.
    The evidence demonstrates that Respondent acquired monopoly power as a result
    of its superior technology and Intel’ s choice ofRambus s technology. 23. To
    the extent that Complaint Counsel’ s Section 5 cause of action is based upon
    a breach of duty to disclose under JEDEC’s rules , Complaint Counsel have
    failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s omissions or misrepresentations were
    relied upon by JEDEC or that such reliance was reasonable. No Anticompetitive
    Effects 24. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that there were
    viable alternatives to Respondent’ s technologies. 25. Complaint Counsel’ s
    economic expert failed to demonstrate that “equal or superior 332
    alternatives were excluded by Respondent’ s challenged conduct. 26. Under the
    economic theory of “revealed preference ” the evidence demonstrates that even
    if Respondent had made the additional disclosures alleged to have been
    required, rational manufacturers and a rational JEDEC would have selected
    Respondent’ s technologies because the proposed alternatives were inferior.
    27. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s
    challenged conduct resulted in higher prices to the consumer. 28. The
    evidence indicates that Respondent’s royalty rates are reasonable. 29. The
    evidence indicates that Respondent’s royalty rates are nondiscriminatory.
    JEDEC Is Not Locked In To Respondent’ s Technologies 30. The evidence
    indicates that DRA manufacturers were not locked in to using Respondent’ s
    technologies at any point from 1990 to the present. 31. JEDECs continued
    use of Respondent’ s technologies is due to the fact that Rambus
    technologies are superior in cost/performance terms to any alternatives,
    despite Rambus s royalty rates. 333 ORDER Accordingly, Complaint Counsel
    having failed to sustain its burden of establishing liability for the
    violations alleged, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Chief Administrative Law
    Judge February 23 , 2004 Washington, D. C. 334

  11. Ketchikan said,

    December 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

    Gravatar

    When a company willfully infringes valid, enforceable patents (IP) they are committing patent piracy, just like when clothing/fashion companies copy with out authorization the design/trademark of their competitors, they are infringing their copyright and are labeled as pirates.

    It was been proven in a court of law that members of the DRAM cartel knew of Rambus patents which were deemed to be valid, enforceable and infringed thus calling their deliberate infringement as patent piracy is pretty accurate.

    If you prefer you can call them patent/IP thieves…

    But back to my previous point, per Judge Prost’s ruling, How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?

  12. Jo Shields said,

    December 16, 2008 at 6:18 am

    Gravatar

    Y’know, this is what happens when “Boycott Novell” turns into “whinge about 10 different things with a tangential relationship at best”

    What connection is there between RAMBUS and Novell? None! Should they be a topic on a site called “Boycott Novell”? No!

  13. Rolv Heggenhougen said,

    December 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

    Gravatar

    @Jo – The connection was made by reference by the author. There’s a lot of misconceptions when it comes to Patents and standards and as a Rambus shareholder I wanted to set the record straight.

  14. Jo Shields said,

    December 16, 2008 at 7:28 am

    Gravatar

    No record straightening is allowed here on BN. I’d quit while you’re ahead.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 16, 2008 at 9:03 am

    Gravatar

    Ketchikan,

    Patents are not to be confused with ideas.

    Piracy often involves death and rape. Patents are not cargo, either.

  16. Fiery Spirited said,

    December 18, 2008 at 3:05 am

    Gravatar

    The objections from the Rambus shareholders are funny. They are at the same moment claiming that Rambus did not break JEDEC rules since they did not have the patent by then and that that the JEDEC group did a hostile overtake of Rambus technology.

    At the end of the day it is pretty simple…both these ideas can not be true at the same time. Either Rambus had patents in the area that they should have disclosed or they did not have patents and have been stealing the work of JEDEC members.

    What Rambus have been doing is the essence of a patent troll ambush no matter if Rambus is a troll or not normally. What remains to be seen if the laws are written well enough to nail Rambus for their behavior. There is no contradiction between that Rambus might walk free due to lack of evidence and that they in reality might be guilty of the charges.

What Else is New


  1. Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated)

    SUEPO loses a case against EPO management, but the EPO's overzealous management was going to ignore the ruling anyway



  2. New Paper Provides Evidence of Sinking Patent Quality at the EPO, Refuting the Liar in Chief Battistelli

    In spite of Battistelli's claims (lies) about patent quality under his watch, reality suggests that so-called 'production' is simply rushed issuance of invalid patents (one step away from rubberstamping, in order to meet unreasonable, imposed-from-the-top targets)



  3. Battistelli Locks EPO Staff Union Out of Social Conference So That He Can Lie About the Union and the Social Climate

    The attacks on staff of the EPO carry on, with brainwash sessions meticulously scheduled to ensure that Administrative Council delegates are just their master's voice, or the voice of the person whom they are in principle supposed to oversee



  4. Unprecedented Levels of UPC Lobbying by Big Business Europe (Multinationals) and Their Patent Law Firms

    A quick look at some of the latest deception which is intended to bamboozle European politicians and have them play along with the unitary [sic] patent for private interests of the super-rich



  5. Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

    Links for the day



  6. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  7. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  8. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  9. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  10. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  11. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  12. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  13. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  14. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  15. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  16. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  17. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  18. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  19. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  20. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  21. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  22. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  23. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  24. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  25. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  26. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  27. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  28. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  29. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  30. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts